Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement
Identifieur interne : 007940 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 007939; suivant : 007941Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement
Auteurs : Urs Br Gger ; Paul Krenander ; Niklaus P. LangSource :
- Clinical Oral Implants Research [ 0905-7161 ] ; 2005-06.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment, Abutment teeth, Actual reconstruction, Adjacent teeth, Austrian population, Biological complications, Clin, Complication, Consecutive patients, Costes, Costes para, Creugers, Creugers kreulen, Dentistry, Denture, Economic aspects, Economic parameters, Economic studies, Economical point, Edentulous space, Endodontic complications, Fpd, Geistlich pharma, Gger, Impl, Implant, Implant components, Implant group, Implant reconstruction, Implant solution, Implant system, Implants research, International journal, Itis, Laboratory work, Maintenance phase, More visits, Nancial aspects, Opportunity costs, Oral epidemiology, Oral impl, Pacientes recibieron, Para, Partial denture, Partial denture group, Partial dentures, Patient satisfaction, Plaque control, Pretreatment, Pretreatment phase, Pretreatment treatment tech, Private practice, Prosthetic dentistry, Prosthodontic journals, Prosthodontics, Quality assessment, Short observation period, Single crown, Single crowns, Solid abutments, Standard deviations, Systematic review, Systematic reviews, Tariff point, Technical complications, Time span, Total costs, Total treatment time, Toutes sauf, Treatment options, Treatment phase, Treatment time.
- Teeft :
- Abutment, Abutment teeth, Actual reconstruction, Adjacent teeth, Austrian population, Biological complications, Clin, Complication, Consecutive patients, Costes, Costes para, Creugers, Creugers kreulen, Dentistry, Denture, Economic aspects, Economic parameters, Economic studies, Economical point, Edentulous space, Endodontic complications, Fpd, Geistlich pharma, Gger, Impl, Implant, Implant components, Implant group, Implant reconstruction, Implant solution, Implant system, Implants research, International journal, Itis, Laboratory work, Maintenance phase, More visits, Nancial aspects, Opportunity costs, Oral epidemiology, Oral impl, Pacientes recibieron, Para, Partial denture, Partial denture group, Partial dentures, Patient satisfaction, Plaque control, Pretreatment, Pretreatment phase, Pretreatment treatment tech, Private practice, Prosthetic dentistry, Prosthodontic journals, Prosthodontics, Quality assessment, Short observation period, Single crown, Single crowns, Solid abutments, Standard deviations, Systematic review, Systematic reviews, Tariff point, Technical complications, Time span, Total costs, Total treatment time, Toutes sauf, Treatment options, Treatment phase, Treatment time.
Abstract
Abstract: The aim of this study was to assess and compare economic parameters of two treatment options in patients requiring single‐tooth replacements in private practice. Thirty‐seven patients received 41 conventional three‐unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Fifty‐two patients received 59 single crowns on implants (I). Treatment assignment was not random. All except one were metal ceramic reconstructions. All except one were crowns cemented on solid abutments of the ITI® Dental Implant System. Economic parameters were noted for the preparatory phase, the actual reconstruction and for treatment of biological and/or technical complication thereafter (range 1–4 years): number of visits, chair‐side time, treatment costs, costs for implant components and laboratory work. Costs were based on the tariffs between the Swiss dentists association and the insurers (Sfr 3.1 per tariff point). Implant treatment required more visits than FPD (8.1±2/4.8±2.3, χ2: P=0.02). However, the total treatment time was similar (I: 4.8 h±0.9 h/FGM: 5.1 h±1.3 h, NS). Laboratory costs were higher for FPD (1527.8±209 SFr) vs. 579.6±106.9 CHF for I. Costs for treatment of technical and biological complications were similar. Total costs amounted to 3939.4±766.4 SFr for FGM vs. 3218±512.2 SFr for I (P<0.003, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Even when considering opportunity costs (50 SFr) for each visit the implant solution was less expensive: 3623.2±656.1 SFr vs. 4178.7±822.1 SFr (P<0.04, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Costs for treatment of complications were similar. In conclusion, over a short observation period, the implant reconstruction demonstrated a more favorable cost/effectiveness ratio. Especially in clinical situations with either non‐ or minimally restored teeth and sufficient bone, the implant reconstruction is to be recommended from an economical point of view.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01112.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:F509583427E012DCF6FF26CEF128C46D56C8167CLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement</title><author><name sortKey="Br Gger, Urs" sort="Br Gger, Urs" uniqKey="Br Gger U" first="Urs" last="Br Gger">Urs Br Gger</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Krenander, Paul" sort="Krenander, Paul" uniqKey="Krenander P" first="Paul" last="Krenander">Paul Krenander</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lang, Niklaus P" sort="Lang, Niklaus P" uniqKey="Lang N" first="Niklaus P." last="Lang">Niklaus P. Lang</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:F509583427E012DCF6FF26CEF128C46D56C8167C</idno><date when="2005" year="2005">2005</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01112.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/F509583427E012DCF6FF26CEF128C46D56C8167C/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">007940</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">007940</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement</title><author><name sortKey="Br Gger, Urs" sort="Br Gger, Urs" uniqKey="Br Gger U" first="Urs" last="Br Gger">Urs Br Gger</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Krenander, Paul" sort="Krenander, Paul" uniqKey="Krenander P" first="Paul" last="Krenander">Paul Krenander</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Lang, Niklaus P" sort="Lang, Niklaus P" uniqKey="Lang N" first="Niklaus P." last="Lang">Niklaus P. Lang</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">16</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="335">335</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="341">341</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2005-06">2005-06</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0905-7161</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment teeth</term><term>Actual reconstruction</term><term>Adjacent teeth</term><term>Austrian population</term><term>Biological complications</term><term>Clin</term><term>Complication</term><term>Consecutive patients</term><term>Costes</term><term>Costes para</term><term>Creugers</term><term>Creugers kreulen</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Denture</term><term>Economic aspects</term><term>Economic parameters</term><term>Economic studies</term><term>Economical point</term><term>Edentulous space</term><term>Endodontic complications</term><term>Fpd</term><term>Geistlich pharma</term><term>Gger</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant components</term><term>Implant group</term><term>Implant reconstruction</term><term>Implant solution</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>Itis</term><term>Laboratory work</term><term>Maintenance phase</term><term>More visits</term><term>Nancial aspects</term><term>Opportunity costs</term><term>Oral epidemiology</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Pacientes recibieron</term><term>Para</term><term>Partial denture</term><term>Partial denture group</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Patient satisfaction</term><term>Plaque control</term><term>Pretreatment</term><term>Pretreatment phase</term><term>Pretreatment treatment tech</term><term>Private practice</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Prosthodontic journals</term><term>Prosthodontics</term><term>Quality assessment</term><term>Short observation period</term><term>Single crown</term><term>Single crowns</term><term>Solid abutments</term><term>Standard deviations</term><term>Systematic review</term><term>Systematic reviews</term><term>Tariff point</term><term>Technical complications</term><term>Time span</term><term>Total costs</term><term>Total treatment time</term><term>Toutes sauf</term><term>Treatment options</term><term>Treatment phase</term><term>Treatment time</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment teeth</term><term>Actual reconstruction</term><term>Adjacent teeth</term><term>Austrian population</term><term>Biological complications</term><term>Clin</term><term>Complication</term><term>Consecutive patients</term><term>Costes</term><term>Costes para</term><term>Creugers</term><term>Creugers kreulen</term><term>Dentistry</term><term>Denture</term><term>Economic aspects</term><term>Economic parameters</term><term>Economic studies</term><term>Economical point</term><term>Edentulous space</term><term>Endodontic complications</term><term>Fpd</term><term>Geistlich pharma</term><term>Gger</term><term>Impl</term><term>Implant</term><term>Implant components</term><term>Implant group</term><term>Implant reconstruction</term><term>Implant solution</term><term>Implant system</term><term>Implants research</term><term>International journal</term><term>Itis</term><term>Laboratory work</term><term>Maintenance phase</term><term>More visits</term><term>Nancial aspects</term><term>Opportunity costs</term><term>Oral epidemiology</term><term>Oral impl</term><term>Pacientes recibieron</term><term>Para</term><term>Partial denture</term><term>Partial denture group</term><term>Partial dentures</term><term>Patient satisfaction</term><term>Plaque control</term><term>Pretreatment</term><term>Pretreatment phase</term><term>Pretreatment treatment tech</term><term>Private practice</term><term>Prosthetic dentistry</term><term>Prosthodontic journals</term><term>Prosthodontics</term><term>Quality assessment</term><term>Short observation period</term><term>Single crown</term><term>Single crowns</term><term>Solid abutments</term><term>Standard deviations</term><term>Systematic review</term><term>Systematic reviews</term><term>Tariff point</term><term>Technical complications</term><term>Time span</term><term>Total costs</term><term>Total treatment time</term><term>Toutes sauf</term><term>Treatment options</term><term>Treatment phase</term><term>Treatment time</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Abstract: The aim of this study was to assess and compare economic parameters of two treatment options in patients requiring single‐tooth replacements in private practice. Thirty‐seven patients received 41 conventional three‐unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Fifty‐two patients received 59 single crowns on implants (I). Treatment assignment was not random. All except one were metal ceramic reconstructions. All except one were crowns cemented on solid abutments of the ITI® Dental Implant System. Economic parameters were noted for the preparatory phase, the actual reconstruction and for treatment of biological and/or technical complication thereafter (range 1–4 years): number of visits, chair‐side time, treatment costs, costs for implant components and laboratory work. Costs were based on the tariffs between the Swiss dentists association and the insurers (Sfr 3.1 per tariff point). Implant treatment required more visits than FPD (8.1±2/4.8±2.3, χ2: P=0.02). However, the total treatment time was similar (I: 4.8 h±0.9 h/FGM: 5.1 h±1.3 h, NS). Laboratory costs were higher for FPD (1527.8±209 SFr) vs. 579.6±106.9 CHF for I. Costs for treatment of technical and biological complications were similar. Total costs amounted to 3939.4±766.4 SFr for FGM vs. 3218±512.2 SFr for I (P<0.003, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Even when considering opportunity costs (50 SFr) for each visit the implant solution was less expensive: 3623.2±656.1 SFr vs. 4178.7±822.1 SFr (P<0.04, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Costs for treatment of complications were similar. In conclusion, over a short observation period, the implant reconstruction demonstrated a more favorable cost/effectiveness ratio. Especially in clinical situations with either non‐ or minimally restored teeth and sufficient bone, the implant reconstruction is to be recommended from an economical point of view.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>pretreatment</json:string><json:string>gger</json:string><json:string>denture</json:string><json:string>para</json:string><json:string>creugers</json:string><json:string>fpd</json:string><json:string>itis</json:string><json:string>economic aspects</json:string><json:string>costes</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>single crown</json:string><json:string>prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>oral impl</json:string><json:string>impl</json:string><json:string>implant group</json:string><json:string>abutment teeth</json:string><json:string>single crowns</json:string><json:string>implants research</json:string><json:string>implant reconstruction</json:string><json:string>economic parameters</json:string><json:string>implant components</json:string><json:string>implant system</json:string><json:string>systematic review</json:string><json:string>private practice</json:string><json:string>opportunity costs</json:string><json:string>technical complications</json:string><json:string>time span</json:string><json:string>dentistry</json:string><json:string>edentulous space</json:string><json:string>standard deviations</json:string><json:string>treatment phase</json:string><json:string>partial denture group</json:string><json:string>solid abutments</json:string><json:string>patient satisfaction</json:string><json:string>tariff point</json:string><json:string>partial denture</json:string><json:string>implant solution</json:string><json:string>complication</json:string><json:string>economic studies</json:string><json:string>consecutive patients</json:string><json:string>actual reconstruction</json:string><json:string>treatment options</json:string><json:string>geistlich pharma</json:string><json:string>adjacent teeth</json:string><json:string>maintenance phase</json:string><json:string>pretreatment phase</json:string><json:string>short observation period</json:string><json:string>austrian population</json:string><json:string>economical point</json:string><json:string>pretreatment treatment tech</json:string><json:string>laboratory work</json:string><json:string>partial dentures</json:string><json:string>more visits</json:string><json:string>prosthodontic journals</json:string><json:string>total treatment time</json:string><json:string>creugers kreulen</json:string><json:string>systematic reviews</json:string><json:string>endodontic complications</json:string><json:string>biological complications</json:string><json:string>quality assessment</json:string><json:string>toutes sauf</json:string><json:string>nancial aspects</json:string><json:string>pacientes recibieron</json:string><json:string>treatment time</json:string><json:string>costes para</json:string><json:string>total costs</json:string><json:string>international journal</json:string><json:string>oral epidemiology</json:string><json:string>prosthetic dentistry</json:string><json:string>plaque control</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Urs Brägger</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Paul Krenander</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Niklaus P. Lang</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>costs</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>economics</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>fixed partial denture</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>oral implants</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>prosthodontics</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>single crown</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CLR1112</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-K6CJPLRF-0</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Abstract: The aim of this study was to assess and compare economic parameters of two treatment options in patients requiring single‐tooth replacements in private practice. Thirty‐seven patients received 41 conventional three‐unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Fifty‐two patients received 59 single crowns on implants (I). Treatment assignment was not random. All except one were metal ceramic reconstructions. All except one were crowns cemented on solid abutments of the ITI® Dental Implant System. Economic parameters were noted for the preparatory phase, the actual reconstruction and for treatment of biological and/or technical complication thereafter (range 1–4 years): number of visits, chair‐side time, treatment costs, costs for implant components and laboratory work. Costs were based on the tariffs between the Swiss dentists association and the insurers (Sfr 3.1 per tariff point). Implant treatment required more visits than FPD (8.1±2/4.8±2.3, χ2: P=0.02). However, the total treatment time was similar (I: 4.8 h±0.9 h/FGM: 5.1 h±1.3 h, NS). Laboratory costs were higher for FPD (1527.8±209 SFr) vs. 579.6±106.9 CHF for I. Costs for treatment of technical and biological complications were similar. Total costs amounted to 3939.4±766.4 SFr for FGM vs. 3218±512.2 SFr for I (P>0.003, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Even when considering opportunity costs (50 SFr) for each visit the implant solution was less expensive: 3623.2±656.1 SFr vs. 4178.7±822.1 SFr (P>0.04, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Costs for treatment of complications were similar. In conclusion, over a short observation period, the implant reconstruction demonstrated a more favorable cost/effectiveness ratio. Especially in clinical situations with either non‐ or minimally restored teeth and sufficient bone, the implant reconstruction is to be recommended from an economical point of view.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>9.091</score><pdfWordCount>4091</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>27174</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>7</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595 x 782 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>259</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>1855</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>6</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement</title><pmid><json:string>15877754</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>0905-7161</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1600-0501</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CLR</json:string></publisherId><volume>16</volume><issue>3</issue><pages><first>335</first><last>341</last><total>6</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2005</json:string><json:string>4118</json:string><json:string>2001</json:string><json:string>1998</json:string><json:string>3631</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>South Jordan, UT, USA</json:string><json:string>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics</json:string><json:string>Dental Medicine University</json:string><json:string>Switzerland Correspondence</json:string><json:string>Bern Switzerland Tel</json:string><json:string>Ultradent Products Inc.</json:string><json:string>Dental Implant Systems</json:string><json:string>University of Bern</json:string><json:string>GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan</json:string><json:string>Institute Straumann AG, Waldenburg, Switzerland</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>I. Los</json:string><json:string>Smith Kline</json:string><json:string>Systematic</json:string><json:string>I. Costs</json:string><json:string>Niklaus P. Lang</json:string><json:string>Urs Bra</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Lichtenstein</json:string><json:string>Basel</json:string><json:string>Ireland</json:string><json:string>Italy</json:string><json:string>Schaan</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl><json:string>Buser et al. 2000</json:string><json:string>Creugers et al. 1990, 1994</json:string><json:string>Chang et al. (1999)</json:string><json:string>Creugers et al. 2000</json:string><json:string>Kreulen (2003)</json:string><json:string>Scurria et al.</json:string><json:string>Berglundh et al. 2002</json:string><json:string>Karlsson et al. 1995</json:string><json:string>Taylor et al. 2000</json:string><json:string>Berglundh et al. (2002)</json:string><json:string>Creugers et al. (1994)</json:string><json:string>Vermylen et al. 2003</json:string><json:string>Dumbrigue et al. (2001)</json:string><json:string>Tepper et al. 2003a, 2003b</json:string></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-K6CJPLRF-0</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - engineering, biomedical</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2005</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2005</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01112.x</json:string></doi><id>F509583427E012DCF6FF26CEF128C46D56C8167C</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/F509583427E012DCF6FF26CEF128C46D56C8167C/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/F509583427E012DCF6FF26CEF128C46D56C8167C/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/F509583427E012DCF6FF26CEF128C46D56C8167C/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement</title><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="de">Oekonomische Aspekte beim Einzelzahnersatz</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2005-06"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement</title><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="de">Oekonomische Aspekte beim Einzelzahnersatz</title><title level="a" type="short" xml:lang="en">Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">Urs</forename><surname>Brägger</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland<address><country key="CH"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Paul</forename><surname>Krenander</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland<address><country key="CH"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Niklaus P.</forename><surname>Lang</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland<address><country key="CH"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">F509583427E012DCF6FF26CEF128C46D56C8167C</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-K6CJPLRF-0</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01112.x</idno><idno type="unit">CLR1112</idno><idno type="supplier">1112</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CLR.CLR1112.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">0905-7161</idno><idno type="eISSN">1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/clr.2005.16.issue-3</idno><idno type="product">CLR</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">16</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="335">335</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="341">341</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">6</biblScope><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2005-06"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><p><hi rend="bold">Abstract: </hi> The aim of this study was to assess and compare economic parameters of two treatment options in patients requiring single‐tooth replacements in private practice. Thirty‐seven patients received 41 conventional three‐unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Fifty‐two patients received 59 single crowns on implants (I). Treatment assignment was not random. All except one were metal ceramic reconstructions. All except one were crowns cemented on solid abutments of the ITI<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> Dental Implant System. Economic parameters were noted for the preparatory phase, the actual reconstruction and for treatment of biological and/or technical complication thereafter (range 1–4 years): number of visits, chair‐side time, treatment costs, costs for implant components and laboratory work. Costs were based on the tariffs between the Swiss dentists association and the insurers (Sfr 3.1 per tariff point). Implant treatment required more visits than FPD (8.1±2/4.8±2.3, χ<hi rend="superscript">2</hi>: <hi rend="italic">P</hi>=0.02). However, the total treatment time was similar (I: 4.8 h±0.9 h/FGM: 5.1 h±1.3 h, NS). Laboratory costs were higher for FPD (1527.8±209 SFr) vs. 579.6±106.9 CHF for I. Costs for treatment of technical and biological complications were similar. Total costs amounted to 3939.4±766.4 SFr for FGM vs. 3218±512.2 SFr for I (<hi rend="italic">P</hi><0.003, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Even when considering opportunity costs (50 SFr) for each visit the implant solution was less expensive: 3623.2±656.1 SFr vs. 4178.7±822.1 SFr (<hi rend="italic">P</hi><0.04, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Costs for treatment of complications were similar. In conclusion, over a short observation period, the implant reconstruction demonstrated a more favorable cost/effectiveness ratio. Especially in clinical situations with either non‐ or minimally restored teeth and sufficient bone, the implant reconstruction is to be recommended from an economical point of view.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="fr" style="main"><head>Résumé</head><p>Le but de cette étude a été de comparer les paramètres économiques de deux options de traitement chez les patients requérant le remplacement d'une dent unique en pratique privée. Trente‐sept patients ont reçu 41 bridges fixés de trois unités (FPD). Cinquante‐deux patients ont reçu 59 couronnes uniques sur implants (I). Le traitement n'était pas au hasard. Toutes sauf une reconstruction étaient céramo‐métalliques. Toutes sauf une étaient des couronnes cimentées sur des implants solides du système ITI<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>. Les paramètres économiques ont été notés pour la phase préparatoire, la reconstruction et pour le traitement des complications techniques ou biologiques ou les deux qui s'ensuivaient (1 à 4 ans): nombre de visites, temps au fauteuil, coût du traitement, coût des composants implantaires et travail du laboratoire dentaire. Les coûts ont été basés sur les tarifs existants entre l'association des dentistes suisses et les assurances (3,10 CHF/point). Le traitement par implant requiert plus de visites que FPD (8,1±2,0/4,8±2,3,X2: <hi rend="italic">P</hi>=0,02). Cependant, le temps de traitement total était semblable (I:4,8h±0,9 h/FGM: 5,1 h±1,3 h, n.s.). Les coûts du laboratoire étaient plus importants pour FPD (1 528±209 CHF) que pour I (580±107 CHF). Le prix pour le traitement des complications techniques et biologiques étaient semblables. Les prix totaux s'élevaient à 3 939±766 CHF pour FGM vs 3 218±512 CHF pour I (<hi rend="italic">P</hi><0,003 Kolmogorov‐Smirnov). Même en considérant les coûts de chaque visite (50 CHF) l'implant était moins cher : 3 623±656 CHF vs 4 179±822 CHF (<hi rend="italic">P</hi><0,04 Kolmogorov‐Smirnov). Les coûts pour les traitements des complications étaient semblables. Sous une petite période d'observation, la reconstitution implantaire a démontré un rapport efficacité/prix plus favorable. Spécialement dans les situations cliniques avec soit pas soit peu de dents restaurées et suffisamment d'os, la reconstruction implantaire devrait être recommandée d'un point de vue économique.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="de" style="main"><head>Zusammenfassung</head><p>Das Ziel dieser Studie war, die ökonomischen Parameter von zwei Behandlungsvarianten bei Patienten, welche einen Einzelzahnersatz benötigen, in der Privatpraxis auszuwerten und zu vergleichen. 37 Patienten erhielten 41 konventionelle dreigliedrige Brücken (FPD). 52 Patienten wurden mit 59 Einzelkronen auf Implantaten versorgt (I). Die Zuteilung der Behandlungsvarianten geschah nicht zufällig. Mit einer Ausnahme handelte es sich bei allen Rekonstruktionen um metallkeramische Werkstücke. Mit einer Ausnahme waren alles Kronen, welche auf Massivsekundärteile des ITI<hi rend="superscript">®</hi> Dental Implant Systems zementiert wurden. Die ökonomischen Parameter wurden für die Vorbereitungsphase, die rekonstruktive Phase und für die in der Folge nötigen Behandlungen von biologischen und/oder technischen Komplikationen (Bandbreite 1–4Jahre) ermittelt: Anzahl Besuche, Zeit am Behandlungsstuhl, Behandlungskosten, Kosten für Implantatkomponenten und Laborkosten. Die Kosten basierten auf Tarifbestimmungen zwischen der schweizerischen Zahnärztegesellschaft und den Versicherungen (sFr. 3.1 pro Taxpunkt).</p><p>Die Implantatbehandlung brauchte mehr Sitzungen als die FPD (8.1±2; 4.8±2.3; χ<hi rend="superscript">2</hi>: <hi rend="italic">P</hi>=0.02). Die totale Behandlungszeit war jedoch ähnlich (I: 4.8±0.9 h; FPD: 5.1±1.3 h; NS).</p><p>Die Laborkosten waren bei den FPD höher (1527.8±209 sFr. für FPD gegenüber 579.6±106.9 sFr. für I). Die Kosten für die Behandlung von technischen und biologischen Komplikationen waren ähnlich. Die totalen Kosten betrugen 3939.4±766.4 sFr. für die FPD gegenüber 3218±512.2 sFr. für die I (<hi rend="italic">P</hi><0.003 Kolmogorov–Smirnov).</p><p>Sogar wenn für jeden Besuch Nebenkosten (50 sFr.) aufgerechnet wurden, war die Implantatlösung weniger teuer: 3623.2±656.1 sFr. gegenüber 4178.7±822.1 sFr. (<hi rend="italic">P</hi><0.04, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Die Kosten für die Behandlung von Komplikationen waren ähnlich.</p><p>
<hi rend="bold">Schlussfolgerung:</hi> Ueber eine kurze Beobachtungsperiode zeigte die Implantatrekonstruktion ein besseres Kosten/Nutzen Verhältnis. Speziell in klinischen Situationen mit nicht oder minimal gefüllten Zähnen und genügend Knochen sollte die Implantatrekonstruktion vom ökonomischen Gesichtspunkt aus empfohlen werden.</p></abstract><abstract xml:lang="es" style="main"><head>Resumen</head><p>La intención de este estudio fue valorar y comparar los parámetros económicos de dos opciones de tratamiento en pacientes que requerían sustitución de un único diente en consultas privadas. 37 pacientes recibieron 41 puentes fijos de tres piezas convencionales (FPD). 52 pacientes recibieron 59 coronas unitarias sobre implantes (I). La asignación de tratamientos no fue aleatoria. Todas excepto una fueron reconstrucciones ceramometálicas. Todas excepto una fueron coronas cementadas sobre pilares macizos del sistema de implantes ITI<hi rend="superscript">®</hi>. Se consideraron los parámetros económicos para la fase preparatoria, la reconstrucción actual y para el tratamiento de complicaciones biológicas o técnicas posteriores (rango 1–4 años): Numero de visitas, tiempo de ocupación de sillón, costó del tratamiento, costo de los componentes del implante y costes de laboratorio. Los costes se basaron en las tarifas entre la asociación de dentistas suizos y las aseguradoras (Sfr 3.1 por punto de tarificación).</p><p>El tratamiento de implantes requirió mas visitas que el FDP (8.1±2/4.8±2.3, χ<hi rend="superscript">2</hi>: <hi rend="italic">P</hi>=0.02). De todos modos, el tiempo total de tratamiento fue similar (I: 4.8±0.9 h FGM: 5.1±1.3 h, NS).</p><p>Los costes de laboratorio fueron mayores para el FDP (1527.8±209 SFr) frente a 579.6±106.9 SFr para I. Los costes para el tratamiento de las complicaciones técnicas o biológicas fueron similares. Los costes totales alcanzaron la cantidad de 3939.4 SFr±766.4 SFr para el FGM frente a 3218±512.2 SFr pata I (<hi rend="italic">P</hi><0.003, Kolmogorov–Smirnov).</p><p>Aun considerando los costes de oportunidad (50 SFr) por cada visita la solución del implante fue menos cara: 3623.2±656.1 SFr frente a 4178.7±822.1 SFr, (<hi rend="italic">P</hi><0.04, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Los costes para el tratamiento de las complicaciones fueron similares.</p><p>
<hi rend="bold">En conclusión:</hi> A lo largo de un periodo corto de observación, la reconstrucción con implantes demostró un costo mas favorable/relación de efectividad. Especialmente en situaciones clínicas sin restauraciones dentales o minimamente restaurados y suficiente hueso, la reconstrucción de implantes debe ser recomendada desde un punto de vista económico.</p><p>
<graphic url="image_n/CLR_1112_fu1.gif" rend="inline image"></graphic>
</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">costs</term><term xml:id="k2">economics</term><term xml:id="k3">fixed partial denture</term><term xml:id="k4">oral implants</term><term xml:id="k5">prosthodontics</term><term xml:id="k6">single crown</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>Original Articles</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/F509583427E012DCF6FF26CEF128C46D56C8167C/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</doi><issn type="print">0905-7161</issn><issn type="electronic">1600-0501</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CLR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH">Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="06003"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/clr.2005.16.issue-3</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="16">16</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="3">3</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2005-06">June 2005</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="10" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01112.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CLR1112"></id><id type="supplier" value="1112"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="6"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Articles</title></titleGroup><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2005-02-09"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2005-02-09"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.4 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-30"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:3.9.2 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2013-12-10"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:4.0.5" date="2014-05-19"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="335">335</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="341">341</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo><b>Correspondence to:</b>
<i>Prof. Urs Brägger</i>
Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics
School of Dental Medicine
University of Bern
Freiburgstrasse 7
3010 Bern
Switzerland
Tel.: +41 31 632 2577
e‐mail: urs.braegger@zmk.unibe.ch</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CLR.CLR1112.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory><b>Date:</b> Accepted 10 June 2004</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="5"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="1"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="15"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="4829"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="23"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="en">Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement</title><title type="shortAuthors">Brägger et al.</title><title type="short" xml:lang="en">Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement</title><title type="main" xml:lang="de">Oekonomische Aspekte beim Einzelzahnersatz</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Urs</givenNames><familyName>Brägger</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Paul</givenNames><familyName>Krenander</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Niklaus P.</givenNames><familyName>Lang</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="CH"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">costs</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">economics</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">fixed partial denture</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">oral implants</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">prosthodontics</keyword><keyword xml:id="k6">single crown</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Abstract: </b> The aim of this study was to assess and compare economic parameters of two treatment options in patients requiring single‐tooth replacements in private practice. Thirty‐seven patients received 41 conventional three‐unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Fifty‐two patients received 59 single crowns on implants (I). Treatment assignment was not random. All except one were metal ceramic reconstructions. All except one were crowns cemented on solid abutments of the ITI<sup>®</sup> Dental Implant System. Economic parameters were noted for the preparatory phase, the actual reconstruction and for treatment of biological and/or technical complication thereafter (range 1–4 years): number of visits, chair‐side time, treatment costs, costs for implant components and laboratory work. Costs were based on the tariffs between the Swiss dentists association and the insurers (Sfr 3.1 per tariff point). Implant treatment required more visits than FPD (8.1±2/4.8±2.3, χ<sup>2</sup>: <i>P</i>=0.02). However, the total treatment time was similar (I: 4.8 h±0.9 h/FGM: 5.1 h±1.3 h, NS). Laboratory costs were higher for FPD (1527.8±209 SFr) vs. 579.6±106.9 CHF for I. Costs for treatment of technical and biological complications were similar. Total costs amounted to 3939.4±766.4 SFr for FGM vs. 3218±512.2 SFr for I (<i>P</i><0.003, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Even when considering opportunity costs (50 SFr) for each visit the implant solution was less expensive: 3623.2±656.1 SFr vs. 4178.7±822.1 SFr (<i>P</i><0.04, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Costs for treatment of complications were similar. In conclusion, over a short observation period, the implant reconstruction demonstrated a more favorable cost/effectiveness ratio. Especially in clinical situations with either non‐ or minimally restored teeth and sufficient bone, the implant reconstruction is to be recommended from an economical point of view.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="fr"><title type="main">Résumé</title><p>Le but de cette étude a été de comparer les paramètres économiques de deux options de traitement chez les patients requérant le remplacement d'une dent unique en pratique privée. Trente‐sept patients ont reçu 41 bridges fixés de trois unités (FPD). Cinquante‐deux patients ont reçu 59 couronnes uniques sur implants (I). Le traitement n'était pas au hasard. Toutes sauf une reconstruction étaient céramo‐métalliques. Toutes sauf une étaient des couronnes cimentées sur des implants solides du système ITI<sup>®</sup>. Les paramètres économiques ont été notés pour la phase préparatoire, la reconstruction et pour le traitement des complications techniques ou biologiques ou les deux qui s'ensuivaient (1 à 4 ans): nombre de visites, temps au fauteuil, coût du traitement, coût des composants implantaires et travail du laboratoire dentaire. Les coûts ont été basés sur les tarifs existants entre l'association des dentistes suisses et les assurances (3,10 CHF/point). Le traitement par implant requiert plus de visites que FPD (8,1±2,0/4,8±2,3,X2: <i>P</i>=0,02). Cependant, le temps de traitement total était semblable (I:4,8h±0,9 h/FGM: 5,1 h±1,3 h, n.s.). Les coûts du laboratoire étaient plus importants pour FPD (1 528±209 CHF) que pour I (580±107 CHF). Le prix pour le traitement des complications techniques et biologiques étaient semblables. Les prix totaux s'élevaient à 3 939±766 CHF pour FGM vs 3 218±512 CHF pour I (<i>P</i><0,003 Kolmogorov‐Smirnov). Même en considérant les coûts de chaque visite (50 CHF) l'implant était moins cher : 3 623±656 CHF vs 4 179±822 CHF (<i>P</i><0,04 Kolmogorov‐Smirnov). Les coûts pour les traitements des complications étaient semblables. Sous une petite période d'observation, la reconstitution implantaire a démontré un rapport efficacité/prix plus favorable. Spécialement dans les situations cliniques avec soit pas soit peu de dents restaurées et suffisamment d'os, la reconstruction implantaire devrait être recommandée d'un point de vue économique.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="de"><title type="main">Zusammenfassung</title><p>Das Ziel dieser Studie war, die ökonomischen Parameter von zwei Behandlungsvarianten bei Patienten, welche einen Einzelzahnersatz benötigen, in der Privatpraxis auszuwerten und zu vergleichen. 37 Patienten erhielten 41 konventionelle dreigliedrige Brücken (FPD). 52 Patienten wurden mit 59 Einzelkronen auf Implantaten versorgt (I). Die Zuteilung der Behandlungsvarianten geschah nicht zufällig. Mit einer Ausnahme handelte es sich bei allen Rekonstruktionen um metallkeramische Werkstücke. Mit einer Ausnahme waren alles Kronen, welche auf Massivsekundärteile des ITI<sup>®</sup> Dental Implant Systems zementiert wurden. Die ökonomischen Parameter wurden für die Vorbereitungsphase, die rekonstruktive Phase und für die in der Folge nötigen Behandlungen von biologischen und/oder technischen Komplikationen (Bandbreite 1–4Jahre) ermittelt: Anzahl Besuche, Zeit am Behandlungsstuhl, Behandlungskosten, Kosten für Implantatkomponenten und Laborkosten. Die Kosten basierten auf Tarifbestimmungen zwischen der schweizerischen Zahnärztegesellschaft und den Versicherungen (sFr. 3.1 pro Taxpunkt).</p><p>Die Implantatbehandlung brauchte mehr Sitzungen als die FPD (8.1±2; 4.8±2.3; χ<sup>2</sup>: <i>P</i>=0.02). Die totale Behandlungszeit war jedoch ähnlich (I: 4.8±0.9 h; FPD: 5.1±1.3 h; NS).</p><p>Die Laborkosten waren bei den FPD höher (1527.8±209 sFr. für FPD gegenüber 579.6±106.9 sFr. für I). Die Kosten für die Behandlung von technischen und biologischen Komplikationen waren ähnlich. Die totalen Kosten betrugen 3939.4±766.4 sFr. für die FPD gegenüber 3218±512.2 sFr. für die I (<i>P</i><0.003 Kolmogorov–Smirnov).</p><p>Sogar wenn für jeden Besuch Nebenkosten (50 sFr.) aufgerechnet wurden, war die Implantatlösung weniger teuer: 3623.2±656.1 sFr. gegenüber 4178.7±822.1 sFr. (<i>P</i><0.04, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Die Kosten für die Behandlung von Komplikationen waren ähnlich.</p><p> <b>Schlussfolgerung:</b> Ueber eine kurze Beobachtungsperiode zeigte die Implantatrekonstruktion ein besseres Kosten/Nutzen Verhältnis. Speziell in klinischen Situationen mit nicht oder minimal gefüllten Zähnen und genügend Knochen sollte die Implantatrekonstruktion vom ökonomischen Gesichtspunkt aus empfohlen werden.</p></abstract><abstract type="main" xml:lang="es"><title type="main">Resumen</title><p>La intención de este estudio fue valorar y comparar los parámetros económicos de dos opciones de tratamiento en pacientes que requerían sustitución de un único diente en consultas privadas. 37 pacientes recibieron 41 puentes fijos de tres piezas convencionales (FPD). 52 pacientes recibieron 59 coronas unitarias sobre implantes (I). La asignación de tratamientos no fue aleatoria. Todas excepto una fueron reconstrucciones ceramometálicas. Todas excepto una fueron coronas cementadas sobre pilares macizos del sistema de implantes ITI<sup>®</sup>. Se consideraron los parámetros económicos para la fase preparatoria, la reconstrucción actual y para el tratamiento de complicaciones biológicas o técnicas posteriores (rango 1–4 años): Numero de visitas, tiempo de ocupación de sillón, costó del tratamiento, costo de los componentes del implante y costes de laboratorio. Los costes se basaron en las tarifas entre la asociación de dentistas suizos y las aseguradoras (Sfr 3.1 por punto de tarificación).</p><p>El tratamiento de implantes requirió mas visitas que el FDP (8.1±2/4.8±2.3, χ<sup>2</sup>: <i>P</i>=0.02). De todos modos, el tiempo total de tratamiento fue similar (I: 4.8±0.9 h FGM: 5.1±1.3 h, NS).</p><p>Los costes de laboratorio fueron mayores para el FDP (1527.8±209 SFr) frente a 579.6±106.9 SFr para I. Los costes para el tratamiento de las complicaciones técnicas o biológicas fueron similares. Los costes totales alcanzaron la cantidad de 3939.4 SFr±766.4 SFr para el FGM frente a 3218±512.2 SFr pata I (<i>P</i><0.003, Kolmogorov–Smirnov).</p><p>Aun considerando los costes de oportunidad (50 SFr) por cada visita la solución del implante fue menos cara: 3623.2±656.1 SFr frente a 4178.7±822.1 SFr, (<i>P</i><0.04, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Los costes para el tratamiento de las complicaciones fueron similares.</p><p> <b>En conclusión:</b> A lo largo de un periodo corto de observación, la reconstrucción con implantes demostró un costo mas favorable/relación de efectividad. Especialmente en situaciones clínicas sin restauraciones dentales o minimamente restaurados y suficiente hueso, la reconstrucción de implantes debe ser recomendada desde un punto de vista económico.</p><p> <inlineGraphic alt="inline image" location="image_n/CLR_1112_fu1.gif" href=""></inlineGraphic> </p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement</title></titleInfo><titleInfo lang="de"><title>Oekonomische Aspekte beim Einzelzahnersatz</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="de"><title>Oekonomische Aspekte beim Einzelzahnersatz</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Urs</namePart><namePart type="family">Brägger</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Paul</namePart><namePart type="family">Krenander</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Niklaus P.</namePart><namePart type="family">Lang</namePart><affiliation>Department of Periodontology and Fixed Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse, Switzerland</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Munksgaard International Publishers</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2005-06</dateIssued><edition>Date: Accepted 10 June 2004</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2005</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">5</extent><extent unit="tables">1</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">15</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">23</extent><extent unit="words">4829</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Abstract: The aim of this study was to assess and compare economic parameters of two treatment options in patients requiring single‐tooth replacements in private practice. Thirty‐seven patients received 41 conventional three‐unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Fifty‐two patients received 59 single crowns on implants (I). Treatment assignment was not random. All except one were metal ceramic reconstructions. All except one were crowns cemented on solid abutments of the ITI® Dental Implant System. Economic parameters were noted for the preparatory phase, the actual reconstruction and for treatment of biological and/or technical complication thereafter (range 1–4 years): number of visits, chair‐side time, treatment costs, costs for implant components and laboratory work. Costs were based on the tariffs between the Swiss dentists association and the insurers (Sfr 3.1 per tariff point). Implant treatment required more visits than FPD (8.1±2/4.8±2.3, χ2: P=0.02). However, the total treatment time was similar (I: 4.8 h±0.9 h/FGM: 5.1 h±1.3 h, NS). Laboratory costs were higher for FPD (1527.8±209 SFr) vs. 579.6±106.9 CHF for I. Costs for treatment of technical and biological complications were similar. Total costs amounted to 3939.4±766.4 SFr for FGM vs. 3218±512.2 SFr for I (P<0.003, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Even when considering opportunity costs (50 SFr) for each visit the implant solution was less expensive: 3623.2±656.1 SFr vs. 4178.7±822.1 SFr (P<0.04, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Costs for treatment of complications were similar. In conclusion, over a short observation period, the implant reconstruction demonstrated a more favorable cost/effectiveness ratio. Especially in clinical situations with either non‐ or minimally restored teeth and sufficient bone, the implant reconstruction is to be recommended from an economical point of view.</abstract><abstract lang="fr">Le but de cette étude a été de comparer les paramètres économiques de deux options de traitement chez les patients requérant le remplacement d'une dent unique en pratique privée. Trente‐sept patients ont reçu 41 bridges fixés de trois unités (FPD). Cinquante‐deux patients ont reçu 59 couronnes uniques sur implants (I). Le traitement n'était pas au hasard. Toutes sauf une reconstruction étaient céramo‐métalliques. Toutes sauf une étaient des couronnes cimentées sur des implants solides du système ITI®. Les paramètres économiques ont été notés pour la phase préparatoire, la reconstruction et pour le traitement des complications techniques ou biologiques ou les deux qui s'ensuivaient (1 à 4 ans): nombre de visites, temps au fauteuil, coût du traitement, coût des composants implantaires et travail du laboratoire dentaire. Les coûts ont été basés sur les tarifs existants entre l'association des dentistes suisses et les assurances (3,10 CHF/point). Le traitement par implant requiert plus de visites que FPD (8,1±2,0/4,8±2,3,X2: P=0,02). Cependant, le temps de traitement total était semblable (I:4,8h±0,9 h/FGM: 5,1 h±1,3 h, n.s.). Les coûts du laboratoire étaient plus importants pour FPD (1 528±209 CHF) que pour I (580±107 CHF). Le prix pour le traitement des complications techniques et biologiques étaient semblables. Les prix totaux s'élevaient à 3 939±766 CHF pour FGM vs 3 218±512 CHF pour I (P<0,003 Kolmogorov‐Smirnov). Même en considérant les coûts de chaque visite (50 CHF) l'implant était moins cher : 3 623±656 CHF vs 4 179±822 CHF (P<0,04 Kolmogorov‐Smirnov). Les coûts pour les traitements des complications étaient semblables. Sous une petite période d'observation, la reconstitution implantaire a démontré un rapport efficacité/prix plus favorable. Spécialement dans les situations cliniques avec soit pas soit peu de dents restaurées et suffisamment d'os, la reconstruction implantaire devrait être recommandée d'un point de vue économique.</abstract><abstract>Das Ziel dieser Studie war, die ökonomischen Parameter von zwei Behandlungsvarianten bei Patienten, welche einen Einzelzahnersatz benötigen, in der Privatpraxis auszuwerten und zu vergleichen. 37 Patienten erhielten 41 konventionelle dreigliedrige Brücken (FPD). 52 Patienten wurden mit 59 Einzelkronen auf Implantaten versorgt (I). Die Zuteilung der Behandlungsvarianten geschah nicht zufällig. Mit einer Ausnahme handelte es sich bei allen Rekonstruktionen um metallkeramische Werkstücke. Mit einer Ausnahme waren alles Kronen, welche auf Massivsekundärteile des ITI® Dental Implant Systems zementiert wurden. Die ökonomischen Parameter wurden für die Vorbereitungsphase, die rekonstruktive Phase und für die in der Folge nötigen Behandlungen von biologischen und/oder technischen Komplikationen (Bandbreite 1–4Jahre) ermittelt: Anzahl Besuche, Zeit am Behandlungsstuhl, Behandlungskosten, Kosten für Implantatkomponenten und Laborkosten. Die Kosten basierten auf Tarifbestimmungen zwischen der schweizerischen Zahnärztegesellschaft und den Versicherungen (sFr. 3.1 pro Taxpunkt).</abstract><abstract>Die Implantatbehandlung brauchte mehr Sitzungen als die FPD (8.1±2; 4.8±2.3; χ2: P=0.02). Die totale Behandlungszeit war jedoch ähnlich (I: 4.8±0.9 h; FPD: 5.1±1.3 h; NS).</abstract><abstract>Die Laborkosten waren bei den FPD höher (1527.8±209 sFr. für FPD gegenüber 579.6±106.9 sFr. für I). Die Kosten für die Behandlung von technischen und biologischen Komplikationen waren ähnlich. Die totalen Kosten betrugen 3939.4±766.4 sFr. für die FPD gegenüber 3218±512.2 sFr. für die I (P<0.003 Kolmogorov–Smirnov).</abstract><abstract>Sogar wenn für jeden Besuch Nebenkosten (50 sFr.) aufgerechnet wurden, war die Implantatlösung weniger teuer: 3623.2±656.1 sFr. gegenüber 4178.7±822.1 sFr. (P<0.04, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Die Kosten für die Behandlung von Komplikationen waren ähnlich.</abstract><abstract>Schlussfolgerung: Ueber eine kurze Beobachtungsperiode zeigte die Implantatrekonstruktion ein besseres Kosten/Nutzen Verhältnis. Speziell in klinischen Situationen mit nicht oder minimal gefüllten Zähnen und genügend Knochen sollte die Implantatrekonstruktion vom ökonomischen Gesichtspunkt aus empfohlen werden.</abstract><abstract>La intención de este estudio fue valorar y comparar los parámetros económicos de dos opciones de tratamiento en pacientes que requerían sustitución de un único diente en consultas privadas. 37 pacientes recibieron 41 puentes fijos de tres piezas convencionales (FPD). 52 pacientes recibieron 59 coronas unitarias sobre implantes (I). La asignación de tratamientos no fue aleatoria. Todas excepto una fueron reconstrucciones ceramometálicas. Todas excepto una fueron coronas cementadas sobre pilares macizos del sistema de implantes ITI®. Se consideraron los parámetros económicos para la fase preparatoria, la reconstrucción actual y para el tratamiento de complicaciones biológicas o técnicas posteriores (rango 1–4 años): Numero de visitas, tiempo de ocupación de sillón, costó del tratamiento, costo de los componentes del implante y costes de laboratorio. Los costes se basaron en las tarifas entre la asociación de dentistas suizos y las aseguradoras (Sfr 3.1 por punto de tarificación).</abstract><abstract>El tratamiento de implantes requirió mas visitas que el FDP (8.1±2/4.8±2.3, χ2: P=0.02). De todos modos, el tiempo total de tratamiento fue similar (I: 4.8±0.9 h FGM: 5.1±1.3 h, NS).</abstract><abstract>Los costes de laboratorio fueron mayores para el FDP (1527.8±209 SFr) frente a 579.6±106.9 SFr para I. Los costes para el tratamiento de las complicaciones técnicas o biológicas fueron similares. Los costes totales alcanzaron la cantidad de 3939.4 SFr±766.4 SFr para el FGM frente a 3218±512.2 SFr pata I (P<0.003, Kolmogorov–Smirnov).</abstract><abstract>Aun considerando los costes de oportunidad (50 SFr) por cada visita la solución del implante fue menos cara: 3623.2±656.1 SFr frente a 4178.7±822.1 SFr, (P<0.04, Kolmogorov–Smirnov). Los costes para el tratamiento de las complicaciones fueron similares.</abstract><abstract>En conclusión: A lo largo de un periodo corto de observación, la reconstrucción con implantes demostró un costo mas favorable/relación de efectividad. Especialmente en situaciones clínicas sin restauraciones dentales o minimamente restaurados y suficiente hueso, la reconstrucción de implantes debe ser recomendada desde un punto de vista económico.</abstract><abstract></abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>costs</topic><topic>economics</topic><topic>fixed partial denture</topic><topic>oral implants</topic><topic>prosthodontics</topic><topic>single crown</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Oral Implants Research</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">0905-7161</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CLR</identifier><part><date>2005</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>16</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>3</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>335</start><end>341</end><total>6</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">F509583427E012DCF6FF26CEF128C46D56C8167C</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-K6CJPLRF-0</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01112.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CLR1112</identifier><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Munksgaard International Publishers</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/F509583427E012DCF6FF26CEF128C46D56C8167C/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 007940 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 007940 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:F509583427E012DCF6FF26CEF128C46D56C8167C
|texte= Economic aspects of single‐tooth replacement
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |